alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1210-AB32-2-1118.html[7/24/2015 6:05:54 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvq-6a41

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1612

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Todd Minchey

General Comment

I have saved (401K, IRA) and planned (earned pension) for my retirement, and I don't need government

 interference with managing it; security/asset protection, maybe, but not interference.
#### The State *ex rel.*Tilden v. Beamer *et al., Appellants.*

1. Exemptions from Execution. The head of a family may hold exempt the ?300 worth of property allowed by section 11 of the execution law, (Wag. Stat.,p. 604,) whether he is the owner of the property mentioned in the 1st and 2nd subdivisions of section 9 or not.

2. Formal Defects in Pleading: practice. A petition in an action against a sheriff for an unlawful levy and sale, failed to state the value of the property taken. *Held,*that if this was a defect at all, it was of such a formal kind that it was too late co take advantage of it after trial.

*38
      *Appeal from Jasper Common Pleas*Court.— Hon. E. 0. Brown, Judge.

Affirmed.

*E. J. Montague*for appellants.

*Iiarding ft Butter*for respondent.

Sherwood, C. J.

Section 9, Wagner’s Statutes, page 603, in its 1st and 2nd subdivisions, exempts certain property, when owned by the head of a family, from sale under execution. Section 11 of the same chapter, gives to such head of a family the privilege of selecting and holding exempt from execution any other property, etc., etc., not exceeding in value the amount of $300. Section 12 makes it the duty of the officer having the execution, to apprise the debtor of his rights under the preceding sections. The breaches of the official bond of Beamer, the sheriff, as assigned in the petition, are his failure to apprise the relator, Tilden, of his rights under the law, and the levy of the execution on certain corn and the sale thereof, notwithstanding a notification from Tilden that he claimed the corn as exempt in lieu of the property mentioned in subdivisions '! and 2 of section *9, supra.*The evidence tended to establish the allegations of the petition.

The breaches of the bond were well assigned. It was altogether immaterial whether Tilden was the owner of the property mentioned in the 1st and 2nd subdivisions of section 9 or not, If he owned that property he had the right to exercise the election given him by section 11. If he did not own such property, still his right under the last mentioned section remained. *State v. Farmer,*21 Mo. 160. The petition, therefore, was not defective in failing to allege that Tilden was not the owner of property exempted as aforesaid.

If the petition was defective in failing to allege' the *39value of the corn levied on, it still stated a cause of action, and any mere formal defect in the particular mentioned, if any existed, should have been taken advantage of at an .earlier stage of the action. The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
ERG Proposal ref#: 11-411-HC

Proposal valid for 30 days

Attn: DAN-TAM NGUYEN Date: 6/27/2011

Ph: 703-633-1617 3 pages

Qty. 100 GPM Unit Price Total Price

1 Model: WCR-A216M

Frame material: Carbon Steel

Surface Area: 29 ft2

21) 0.5mm 316ss plates, NBR clip on gaskets

Single pass flow

2" MPT 316ss connections

ASME code rated at 150 PSI

Safety shroud included

18L Frame length, Max plates: 58

$2,442.89 $2,442.89

1 100 GPM with Titanium plates $4,198.00

500 GPM

1 Model: WCR-A425M

Frame material: Carbon Steel

Surface Area: 137 ft2

60) 0.5mm 316ss plates, NBR clip on gaskets

Single pass flow

4" Studded 316ss connections

ASME code rated at 150 PSI

Safety shroud included

36L Frame length, Max plates: 86

$5,314.55 $5,314.55

1 500 GPM with Titanium plates $10,691.00

1500 GPM

1 Model: WCR-A891M

Frame material: Carbon Steel

Surface Area: 576 ft2

65) 0.5mm 316ss plates, NBR clip on gaskets

Single pass flow

8" Studded 316ss connections

ASME code rated at 150 PSI

Safety shroud included

1000L Frame length, Max plates: 85

$22,716.80 $22,716.80

1 1500 GPM with Titanium plates $38,764.00

HComer@Plate-Heatexchanger.com

WCR Heat Exchangers

Mail: 221 Crane Street / Ship: 1300 East First Street

Dayton, OH 45403

Ph: 937-223-0703 Fx: 937-223-2818
WCR heat exchanger performance accuracy is dependent on accuracy of customer data

and conformance to specified operating conditions. Please review specification sheet 

carefully before placing Purchase Order.

Shipment Terms: Collect or Third Party Bill

Shipment Point: Dayton, Ohio

Shipment: 4-6 weeks after receipt of order or drawing approval, if required

Terms of Payment: Net 30 days based on approved credit

Terms of Sale: Can be found on our homepage @ www.wcr-heatexchangers.com

We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. If at anytime you have concerns or you are dissatisfied with

our level of service, please communicate this to us at once. Our mission is to set the standard for premiere

service in the heat exchanger industry. With your help we are confident we will accomplish our mission

Best Regards,

Heather Comer

Application Engineer

Cc: Ed Aring
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:Reducing the deficit, spending and revenue options**** 
SuDocNumber:Y10.13:
ItemNumber:1005-F(online)
CGPsystem Number:000315861
 
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
 **
<PAGE>  83



                                                                 EXHIBIT 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Coachmen Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Joseph
P. Tomczak, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that , based on my knowledge:

             (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

             (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of and for the period(s) covered in the Report.


                  By:  /S/ JOSEPH P. TOMCZAK
                       ---------------------
                       Joseph P. Tomczak
                       Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: March 28, 2003
SUPREME COURT.

#### The Philadelphia Steamship Dock Company agt. The Lorillard Steamship Company.

Preferences— *Code of Civil*Procedure, *section*791.

A lease of certain wharf property for a term of years at a yearly rent is not to he regarded as an obligation for the 'absolute payment of money, within the meaning of subdivision *8,*section 791 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so as to entitle the action to a preference on the calendar.

*Circuit, Part*1, *March,*1878.

Motion to prefer cause.

*Eugene Smith,*for motion.

*Horace Barnard,*opposed.

Van Vorst, J.

I do not regard the instrument upon which this action is brought, being a lease of certain wharf property for a term of five years at a yearly rent as an obligation for the absolute payment of money, within the meaning of subdivision 8, section 791 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so as to entitle the action to a preference on the calendar.

The actions so to be preferred are founded upon notes and other instruments, such as bonds providing for the payment of money exclusively. A lease is no more such obligation than is a contract for the delivery of merchandise or a horse at a price fixed. The motion is denied.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States governmentSkip to main content
end of header


Census.gov
                                    >                                
                                Business and Economy    >Retail - Monthly    >Get Forms
 Skip to looking for section Main	About	Information for Respondents	Data	Time Series/Trend Charts	Technical Documentation	Release Schedule	Definitions	FAQs	Contact Us Back to Our Surveys & Programs
 Main	About	Information for Respondents	Data	Time Series/Trend Charts	Technical Documentation	Release Schedule	Definitions	FAQs	Contact Us
                                Back to Our Surveys & Programs
  Forms and Letters Are you in a survey? Is this form legitimate? Get help with your form  Use the links below to view the forms used to collect data for each survey. All forms are in Adobe PDF format.
  Advance Monthly Retail
  Advance Monthly Retail Trade Survey Forms
  Monthly Retail
  Monthly Retail Trade Survey Forms
  Quarterly E-Commerce
  Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales Forms
 Last Revised: June 02, 2020


CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.41 May employers use the CCF for non-Federal collections or non-Federal forms for DOT collections? ( a ) No, as an employer, you are prohibited from using the CCF for non-Federal collections. You are also prohibited from using non-Federal forms for DOT collections. Doing either subjects you to enforcement action under DOT agency regulations.
( b ) ( 1 ) In the rare case where the collector, either by mistake or as the only means to conduct a test under difficult circumstances (*e.g.,* post-accident or reasonable suspicion test with insufficient time to obtain the CCF), uses a non-Federal form for a DOT collection, the use of a non-Federal form does not present a reason for the laboratory to reject the specimen for testing or for an MRO to cancel the result.
( 2 ) The use of the non-Federal form is a “correctable flaw.” As an MRO, to correct the problem you must follow the procedures of § 40.205(b)(2).
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 41950, Aug. 9, 2001. Redesignated and amended at 88 FR 27639, June 1, 2023]
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-0544

 Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-057-AD

777-24-0077, R3 --- 12/6/11

777-24-0077, R2 --- 12/17/09

777-24-0077, R1 --- 5/24/07

777-24-0077 --- 8/21/03

777-23-0176, R1 --- 3/11/04

777-23-0176 --- 1/9/03

777-24-0087, R1 --- 12/18/03

777-24-0087 --- 7/24/03

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Indemnity Letter - Roger Davis



 Exhibit 4.27 
  

			
		  	Barclays Corporate Secretariat
		  	Level 29
		  	One Churchill Place
		  	London
		  	E14 5HP
	22 June 2005	  	
		
		  	Tel 020 7116 1000
		  	Fax 020 7116 7665
	Roger Davis	  	
	Chief Executive Officer, UK Banking	  	
	Level 24	  	
	Barclays PLC	  	
	One Churchill Place	  	
	London E14 5HP	  	

 

 
 Dear Roger 
 Indemnity contained in Articles of Association 
 Clause 2.2 of your contract of employment dated 18 December 2003 (“your
contract”) states that your duties as a director of Barclays or any member of the Barclays Group are subject to the Articles of Association of the relevant company for the time being. This letter supplements and forms part of the terms of your
contract. 
 For the avoidance of doubt, the Boards have confirmed that as a director of Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC you have the benefit of and are
able to rely upon the indemnity contained in Article 160 of the Barclays PLC Articles of Association and the identical wording in Article 157 of the Barclays Bank PLC Articles of Association, the terms of which are hereby expressly incorporated into
your contract. Copies of the relevant Articles are attached for your ease of reference. 
 The terms of this letter are governed by English law and the
parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts. 
 Yours sincerely 
  

					
	 /s/ Lawrence Dickinson
	 		  	 /s/ Patrick Gonsalves

	Lawrence Dickinson	 		  	Patrick Gonsalves
	Company Secretary	 		  	Joint Secretary
	Barclays PLC	 		  	Barclays Bank PLC
			
	Countersigned by	 		  	
			
	     


  
	 		  	
	Director	 		  	

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 Barclays PLC. Registered in
England. Registered No: 48839. Registered Office: 1 Churchill Place, London E14 5HP
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2022

- 4111

_____________________________
R OBERTO L OPEZ , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. James M. Colaw , Judge

.

March 11, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B ILBREY , W INOKUR , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Gilbert A. Schaffnit
, Law Offices of Gilbert A. Schaffnit, Gainesville, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody
, Attorney General and Damaris E. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### § 236.829 Terminal, initial.

The starting point of a locomotive for a trip.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56849-56850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17969]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

[[Page 56850]]

amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The cooperative agreement applications and the 
discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial 
property such as patentable material, and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the cooperative agreement 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; NCATS CTSA UM1 Review Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: October 19, 2023.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Center for 
Advancing Translational Sciences, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Victor Henriquez, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Room 1080, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-0813, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a424f4458435b5f5c6a474b434604444342044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e767b706c776f6b685e737f77723070777630797168">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 16, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-17969 Filed 8-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-136744, No. 333-127778, No. 333-108561, No. 333-44437 and No. 333-15929) of our report dated March 24, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Comprehensive Care
Corporation and subsidiaries included in this Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Kirkland, Russ, Murphy & Tapp P.A.
|Kirkland, Russ, Murphy & Tapp P.A.    

Clearwater, Florida

March 24, 2009



91
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 15
- 00296
- CV

K. G., Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 14
- 002010, THE HONORABL E GISELA D. T RIANA, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O R D E R
PER CURIAM

Appellant K. G. filed his notice of appeal on May 14, 2015 . The appellate record was complete June 10, 2015 , making appellant = s brief due June 30, 2015

. On June 30, 2015 , counsel for appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief.

Amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days fo r court’s f inal disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order counsel to file appellant = s brief no later than July 20, 2015 . If the brief is not filed by that date , counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on July 2, 2015

. Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin and Bourland
1210-AB32-2-1053.html[7/23/2015 3:26:37 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvp-fhsu

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1545

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Robert Newman

General Comment

We do not need additional government assistance for our retirement planning. Specifically, regulations changing

 the current IRA / 401K / Roth models to restrict how, or where money is invested, or lowers the allowable pre or

 post tax amounts should not occur. The federal government already controls too much tax payer money via

 Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security and IRS withholding and has done a terrible job managing its own finances.

 The previously mentioned investment vehicles are working and utilize the time tested and finacially consevative

 model of buy and hold that withstands market fluctuations over the long term. People everywhere of all social

 economic states are, and have been, successfully utilizing these investment strategies for decades and providing

 for themselve a stream of income in retirement that on average far exceeds anything they get from social

 security. Additional restrictive regulation is unnecessary and an overreach of a nanny state government.
From: Len Claus, IMS Securities [mailto:lclaus@ims-securities.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 5:21 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

Dear DOL,

Investment choices should be “suitable”.

Under the DOL proposal, for the first time, advisors will have the best 

interest clause in their contract with investors. The best interest clause is new to 

lawyers — so new that some have never heard of it and are still trying 

to figure out what it means. That means advisors in IRA accounts will have major 

liability problems 

FINRA, SEC and DOL have never defined “fiduciary” or “best interests”.

FINRA and SEC supervise investments. The DOL rules are unnecessary as

they are confusing, contradictory and misleading.

Regards,

Len Claus

Registered Representative

IMS Securities, Inc (Member FINRA/SIPC)

West8 Tower

10205 Westheimer, Suite 500

Houston, TX 77042

cell (713)306-3817 office (713)266-2993 ext 138

FINRA SMART BOND INVESTING IS AVAILABLE HERE:

http://www.finra.org/web/groups/investors/@inv/@smart/documents/investors/p125843.pdf

FannieMae and FreddieMac securities are not backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government but they have credit lines with the U S 

Treasury. Securities issued by GinnieMae are full faith and credit of the US Government.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 5/18/15 3:05 PM

Received: May 18, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8ix3-fuxc

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0281

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Ronald Johnson

Address: 

1523 Enyart Way Unit 201

Annapolis, MD, 21409

Email: ronaldjohnson@att.net

Phone: 4435347802

General Comment

I am in favor of RIN 1210-AB32. It removes a conflict of interest that is detrimental to the 

Country's citizens. Retirement investment is complex enough without adding in the current 

incentives of commission rater than a good investment recommendations. Sound investment for 

individuals can only help the overall Country's economic recovery.

I especially support the fact that this proposed rule is not just for employer plans. I am already 

retired, but still need unbiased recommendations on investments... if nothing else, to keep up 

with possible inflation.

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481ae66be&format=xml&show... 5/18/2015